[WildTurkey]

Not here. I prefer to fight each battle only once. Those who have been paying attention know exactly what I am talking about.

It means you can't support your allegation.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may …

RobRoy: Not here. I prefer to fight each battle only once. Those who have been paying attention know exactly what I am talking about.

WildTurkey: It means you can't support your allegation.

You might want to check RobRoy’s signon date. He’s been on the forum about six and a half years now.

I do very much appreciate RobRoy’s desire not to fight the same battles over and again - as I imagine others on your "side" such as PatrickHenry, Ichneumon and VadeRetro would also. It takes a lot of reading to find a post with something new or particularly informative in an area which is of special interest to an individual Freeper or Lurker.

For instance, here are some points which I believe most of us would agree have been pretty much “settled” over the years but nevertheless get argued over and again:

That Young Earth Creationism is not the same thing as Intelligent Design.

That Darwin did not address abiogenesis in his theory, nor did he define “life” at all much less address how it came to be.

That the ”theory of evolution” does not include abiogenesis v biogenesis.

That the term ”evolution” reaches to include all kinds of gradual change over time.

That the Designer in Intelligent Design arguments could be God, collective consciousness or alien.

That the arguments for Panspermia are very similar to the arguments for Intelligent Design.

That there are theologians who accept evolution, e.g. the Catholic church.

That there are atheists/agnostics who do not accept evolution, e.g. Panspermia supporters such as Crick.

Sometimes on these threads, the science discussion gets swamped by a theological sidebar among several doctrines or theologies to which science is ill-equipped to speak (and a lot of contention could be averted if only they would demur):

Some Christians base their theology on Adam being the first mortal man, i.e. an age of the universe at approximately 6000 years plus 6 days from our space/time coordinates.

Some Christians base their theology on Adam being the first ensouled man.

Some Judeo/Christians base their understanding of Genesis 1 at approximately 6000 years from our space/time coordinates plus 6 days from the inception (big bang, relativity, inflationary theory) space/time coordinates.

Some Christians see the difference between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis allowing for billions of years.

Some Judeo/Christians see Genesis 1 through 3 speaking of both a physical realm and a spiritual realm.

Some threads become very academic right away in the discussion of science and philosophy. betty boop's latest thread is my all time favorite!

But even there, the discussion tends to fall neatly based on the worldview each Freeper brings to the table, e.g. one's view of what is “all that there is”:

To a metaphysical naturalist, "reality" is all that exists in nature
To an autonomist "reality" is all that is, the way it is
To an objectivist "reality" is that which exists
To a mystic "reality" may include thought as substantive force and hence, a part of "reality"
To Plato "reality" includes constructs such as redness, chairness, numbers, geometry and pi
To Aristotle these constructs are not part of "reality" but merely language
To some physicists, "reality" is the illusion of quantum mechanics
To Christians "reality" is God's will and unknowable in its fullness.
For instance, PatrickHenry and I are on opposite sides of the Plato/Aristotle forms dispute and thus find it easy to arrive at the point where we can comfortably state both sides equally, raise that difference and agree to disagree.

Truly, I wish there were some way that we could likewise organize matters on the generalized (and typically, quite large) evolution threads so that it would be easier to “fast forward” through the boilerplate.

[RobRoy]

I said: "Not here. I prefer to fight each battle only once. Those who have been paying attention know exactly what I am talking about."

You said:

>>It means you can't support your allegation.<<

My response:
Blah, blah, blah. It means whatever you want it to mean, apparently. ;^>